At a lower level of the hierarchy are to be found deacons, who receive the imposition of hands “not unto the priesthood, but unto the ministry.” [Constitutions of the Egyptian Church, III, 2: ed. Funk, Didascalia, II, p.103, Statuta Eccl. Ant. 37-41: Mansi 3, 954.] For strengthened by sacramental grace they are dedicated to the People of God, in conjunction with the bishop and his body of priests, in the service of the liturgy, of the Gospel and of works of charity. It pertains to the office of a deacon, in so far as it may be assigned to him by the competent authority,

to administer Baptism solemnly,

to be the custodian and distributor of the Eucharist,

in the name of the Church, to assist at and to bless marriages,

to bring Viaticum to the dying,

to read the sacred scripture to the faithful,

to instruct and exhort the people,

to preside over the worship and the prayer of the faithful,

to administer sacramentals,

and to officiate at funeral and burial services.

Dedicated to works of charity and functions of administration, deacons should recall the admonition of St. Polycarp: “Let them be merciful, and zealous, and let them walk according to the truth of the Lord, who became the servant of all.” [St. Polycarp, Ad Phil. 5,2: ed. Funk, I, p .300: It is said that Christ “became the ‘diaconus’ of all.” Cf. Didachè, 15, I: ibid. p. 32. St. Ignatius, Martyr, Trall. 2, 3: ibidl, p. 242. Constitutiones Apostolorum 8, 24, 4: ed. Funk, Didascalia, I, p. 580.]

Since, however, the laws and customs of the Latin Church in force today in many areas render it difficult to fulfill these functions, which are so extremely necessary for the life of the Church, it will be possible in the future to restore the diaconate as a proper and permanent rank of the hierarchy. But it pertains to the competent local episcopal conference, of one kind or another, with the approval of the Supreme Pontiff, to decide whether and where it is opportune that such deacons be appointed. Should the Roman Pontiff think fit, it will be possible to confer this diaconal order even upon married men, provided they be of more mature age, and also on suitable young men, for whom, however, the law of celibacy must remain in force.

What does this document say about the diaconate in the Eastern Catholic Churches?

The diaconate is part of the hierarchy of the Church.

It is received by the imposition of hands; what is known in the Constantinopolitan tradition as cheirotonia.

“not unto the priesthood, but unto the ministry” This does not seem to fully accord with the long standing understanding in Eastern Christianity that the diaconate is part of the priesthood. There appears to be more than one theological position on this matter and there is no full agreement between East and West. (Cf. John Chryssavgis, Remembering and Reclaiming Diakonia, (Brookline MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2009.)

The sacrament of the diaconate confers grace.

Deacons are strengthened by the grace of the sacrament.

The diaconate exists for the “People of God”. It does not exist for the individual deacon and his sanctity.

“in conjunction with the bishop and his body of priests…” The Church is a communion of persons hierarchically structured and the deacons serve in union with the bishop and his presbyters.

The deacon’s service is in liturgy, the Gospel, and works of charity. The diaconate if being fully lived must be lived in all three of these areas. They all work together in a harmonious synergy.

What the deacon does, he must be assigned to do. He does not act in his own name or on his own authority but he acts as the “agent” of the competent authority, viz. his bishop and in a lesser degree his pastor.

(Pope Francis & Patriarch Bartholomew)

A Comparison of the Liturgical Functions

of Deacons East and West

Liturgical Function[1]

Latin Church[2] pre Vatican II

Latin Church post Vatican II

Eastern Churches[3] pre Vatican II

Eastern Churches post Vatican II

Solemn Baptism

No[4]

Yes

No cf. note 4

No cf. note 4

Custodian [5]and Distributer of the Eucharist

Yes[6]

Yes

Yes[7]

Yes cf. note 7

Bless Marriages

No

Yes

No[8]

No cf. note 8

Viaticum

No

Yes

No[9]

No cf. note 9

Read Scripture

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Instruct and exhort the faithful[10]

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Preside at worship

Qualified

yes [11]

Yes

No

No

Administer sacramentals

Qualified yes[12]

Qualified yes[13]

No

No

Officiate at Funerals

No

Yes

No

No

This table provides a quick overview of diaconal liturgical functions in the various Churches of the Catholic communion, and shows where they are the same and where they are not. Lumen gentium 29, certainly seems to extend all these functions to all deacons regardless of their particular Church with the following provision: “in so far as it may be assigned to him by the competent authority”. A deacon must follow the liturgical prescriptions of his own particular Church. The Eastern Catholic Churches by tradition have not assigned to the deacon solemn baptism, the blessing of marriages (such marriages would be invalid, even if a deacon of the Latin Church attempted to give the blessing), presiding at worship, administration of sacramentals, and officiating at funerals.

The Synod of Uk. Cath. Bishops in Canada in a draft text of 1987gave to deacons a wide range of faculties similar but not identical to the Latin deacons. (Cf. pp118-123 of David Motiuk, Eastern Christian in the New World. Ottawa. Saint Paul University. 2005.)

We can also see that there was a greater similarity in diaconal liturgical functions between East and West prior to Vatican II.

[1] As listed in Lumen Gentium 29.

[2] The Latin Church following the Council of Trent had these rites: Roman, Ambrosian, Mozarabic, Carthusian, Dominican, Premonstratian, Carmelite, Cistercian.

It is obvious from a liturgical perspective that the deacon in the West since Vatican II has when no priest is present also taken on the liturgical role of the protos, i.e. the one who presides. This is certainly a departure from the traditional role of the deacon. In the East the deacon assists the protos and never presides. In the West when a presbyeter/bishop presides, the deacon assists but presides when no protos is present and in a limited way becomes the protos. This raises a number of questions.

Should one do within the liturgy what one does not do regularly in the whole of the Church? No, what one does within and outside of the liturgy should cohere.

What is the liturgical role that the deacon is ordained for? The liturgical role of the deacon is to act as an assistant, an agent, and an angelos of the proestos.

What is the original relationship of the deacon to the bishop and the presbyters? Someone who gets something done on behalf of the one he is a diakonos for. Someone who acts as an intermediary or an agent in a transaction. The angelos of the proestos.

Can one be a deacon without being a deacon to or for someone else? Not in any real sense for orders define relationships. If you ask a man is he a deacon and he responds yes, but he has no bishop, to say the least you should be puzzled.

Does the Catholic Church have a coherent harmony with the diaconate in East and West? Yes and no; for on the liturgical level there is some confusion.

November 22, 2014

I would like to compare Orientalium ecclesiarum 17, with Lumen gentium 29.

What does O. e. 17 say? In order that the ancient established practice of the sacrament of orders in the eastern churches may flourish again, this sacred council ardently desires that the office of the permanent diaconate should, where it has fallen into disuse, be restored.(21) The legislative authorities of each individual church should decide about the subdiaconate and the minor orders and the rights and obligations that attach to them.(22)

Section 17 of Orientalium ecclesiarum, (November 21, 1964)can be outlined in the following manner:

There is a “desire or a wish” on the part of the holy council/synod that the permanent diaconate be restored in the Eastern Catholic Churches. However, it is but a “desire or a wish”, thus, the diaconate as a permanent order does not need to exist. Why?

The reason for this restoration is that the “ancient discipline/legislation concerning the sacrament of orders in the Eastern Churches may regain its force/flourish once more”.

There is a recognition that the permanent diaconate “has fallen into disuse”.

We need to ask what is the text referring to by the words, “the ancient established practice of the sacrament of orders in the eastern churches”. There is no clear time framework in the text in which to place this unless the footnotes provide us with a clue. These notes refer to canonical and patristic texts ranging from the early 4th to the late 9th centuries. It can be presumed based on these footnotes that this period establishes the paradigm for the diaconate in the Eastern churches, at least from the perspective of Orientalium ecclesiarum No. 17. A general examination of the footnotes also reveals a legislative tone in regards to the practice of the diaconate. (For the footnotes check this blog.)

The reader should note not only the texts referred to but the many texts and types of texts not mentioned in the footnotes. There are no references to the New Testament and the concept of diakonia found therein or of the N.T. references to the office of the deacon.

The many references to the diaconate found in the pre-Nicene church are also missing. Why not refer to the diaconate as found in the writings of Ignatius of Antioch, 1 Clement, The Shepherd of Hermas, Polycarp of Smyrna, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, etc.? Again, we should ask why are the early church orders, e.g. The Didache, Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus, Didascalia Apostolorum, Apostolic Church Order/Ecclesiastical Canons of the Holy Apostles, Apostolic Constitutions, Testament of Our Lord, absent? Why no mention of the diaconate in these patristic writings of the East? Possibly, the reader will be able to ascertain the mindset of this decree not only from what it says, but also from what it does not say. (The footnotes tend to a law perspective while Orientalium ecclesiarum 17 is suggestive rather than prescriptive.)

The next phrase in the text that deserves attention is “ardently desires that the office of the permanent diaconate should, where it has fallen into disuse, be restored.”

Let us begin to parse this. The term “permanent diaconate” is not generic to the Eastern or Western Churches. This is a concept that arises since Vat. II in order to make a distinction between those who have declared that they have a vocation to the presbyterate and thus, must pass through the minor orders and the “transitional diaconate” to arrive at the priesthood, and those who have declared that they have a vocation to the diaconate.

The adjective “permanent” refers not to the deacon but to the order of the diaconate itself. All of the Apostolic orders; episcopate, presbyterate, and diaconate are permanent.

It is the order and not the person in the order that is permanent.

Each of the Apostolic orders in its own unique way serves in the ministries of liturgy, word and charity. When there has been a lack of deacons in the church, the Apostolic diaconal ministries of liturgy, word, and charity have suffered.

In various ways the diaconal ministries of liturgy, word, and charity have been assumed by or transferred to either the order of the presbyterate or to the laity.

In the Divine Liturgy we see that most of the diaconal functions, when no deacon is present to serve are assumed by the celebrant or concelebrants, and to a minor extent by the lay altar servers.

However, the diaconal functions do not disappear in the liturgy, word or charity. That is because the diaconal apostolic ministry is essential to the very nature of the church and her mission in the world.

(What follows below is the first part of a paper delivered Oct 18, 2014 at the University of St. Michael's College in the University of Toronto. This international conference was titled The Vatican II Decree on the Eastern Catholic Churches Orientalium ecclesiarum - Fifty Years Later.)

(Deacon Joseph Koczera)

Part A: What did the diaconate look like at the time of Vatican II?

In the East it was both a transitional order on the way to the presbyterate and a permanent order. In the West it was definitively transitional.

It had been this way for at least a millennium primarily due to the cursus honorum, (a training period). Why be anything other that a priest? There was a presupposition that the presbyterate was the only real order in the Church, as everything before it was preliminary. The Low Mass in the West also contributed to the demise of the diaconate for in it only the priest was necessary. This leads to the break down of liturgy as a corporate action and the Church as a corporate reality.

The cursus honorum arose both in the East and the West in order to provide sufficient and adequate training for the clergy in the post-Constantinian Church when clerical ministry no longer made one a candidate for martyrdom but rather had the potential of a social and economic benefit. In response to this, there arose a pattern where a candidate for the presbyterate would pass sequentially through all the minor orders and the diaconate over a given period of time before ordination to the presbyterate. (For a detail study refer to John St. H. Gibaut. The Cursus Honorum: A Study of the Origins and Evolution of Sequential Ordination. New York: Peter Lang Publishing. 2000.)

The Council of Trent had called for a renewal where the diaconate, and the minor orders would be real and permanent but nothing came of this.

Eventually the cursus honorum gave way to seminary training.

The Eastern Churches that entered into communion with the Church of Rome were quick to adopt the Roman seminary paradigm for the education and training of their own clergy. As a result of this, the diaconate and minor orders were thought of in the Eastern Catholic Churches as no more than stepping-stones to the real goal – the holy priesthood.

The Codex iuris canonici 971 § 1,(1917) did not permit anyone to remain in minor orders or the diaconate. Everyone was to proceed to the presbyterate.

In the Eastern Cath. Churches there was a slight difference for Cleri sanctitati (1957) did not require clerics to advance to the priesthood but permitted them to remain in the diaconate and minor orders.

We know the picture in the West and to a large extent in the Eastern Catholic Churches: the diaconate was transitional and as one can easily image it is next to impossible to develop a real and living paradigm of diaconal ministry where the goal of all clerical vocation is the priesthood. The diaconate was a canonical or legal requirement that lead to the real order, the presbyterate.

Robert Clément, S.J. writing in 1966 shortly after the promulgation of Orientalium ecclesiarum addresses the situation of the diaconate in both the Orthodox and Eastern Catholic Churches. (Cf. “Situation Présente du Diaconate en Orient” in P. Winninger et Y. Congar. Le Diacre Dans L’Eglise et Le Monde D’aujourd’hui. Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf. 1966. 63-70.) He states that among the Chaldean Catholics there are 5 deacons and 3 for the Syrians. He mentions that among the Maronites deacons can be found in the monasteries but he gives no numbers.

In my own Church, the Ukrainian Catholic, the paradigm following the Union of Brest became the Roman one. In the first half of the 20th c. Metropolitan Andrew Sheptysky and his brother, Blessed Clement implemented the diaconate as a permanent order among the Studite monastics, but again there were only a few. There were also a few ordained for St. George’s Cathedral in Lviv. During the period of persecutions following Soviet suppression of the Ukrainian Greco Catholic Church, the diaconate in practice was again reduced to a transitional order, sometimes for no more than a day.

Clément mentions that in the Orthodox Church in Russia in 1914 there were 15,210 deacons, 50,150 presbyters and 149 bishops for 100 million faithful in 67 dioceses. Yet in the Orthodox Church in Greece, Clément tells us that it is rare to find deacons who will serve permanently in that order. There, deacons are awaiting ordination to the presbyterate or are found on the staff of bishops where they frequently go on to the episcopate itself; sometimes only a day or two after presbyteral ordination. We can easily see that among the Eastern Catholics and among some of the Orthodox that the diaconate as a permanent order “had fallen into disuse”.

Why was this the case? There seems to be a number of reasons.

When there is no remuneration for deacons as there is for presbyters, the diaconate as a permanent rank declines. The Russian Orthodox Church paid the deacons not only for their liturgical services but also had them employed as teachers of religion in the schools. In the Eastern Catholic Churches as in the Orthodox Church in Greece it was often difficult to find funding for priests let alone deacons.

The Eastern Catholic Churches adopted an educational paradigm for their clergy that was closely modeled after the Post-Tridentine practice as found in the Latin West. In this case the minor orders and the diaconate were conceived of and practiced solely as transitional steps to the real goal of the presbyterate.

Why be a deacon if you can be a priest? This mindset develops from number 2 above. The minor orders and the diaconate are seen as only canonical requirements for ordination to the presbyterate, and the canonical practice is no longer reflecting a period when the cursus honorum meant a real training period of many years in each of the minor orders and the diaconate. For example a man was not to be ordained a deacon before 25 years of age and not a presbyter before 30 years of age. Therefore, he would have at least 5 years of real diaconal service and training before ordination to the presbyterate. The cursushonorum existed as a functional training ground for clergy before the seminary system that followed the Council of Trent. But following Trent the training was shifted to the seminary and the cursus honorum lost its original raison d’être. This being the case, a man often spent very little time in the diaconate or any of the minor orders. The requirements became little more than legalistic and had little to do with real ecclesial life.

Reason number 3 above leads to a mindset of “he who can do more can do less”. Thus, the priest can do everything a deacon can do and more. When there is no deacon present at liturgical services, the diaconal functions are assumed either by the priest or lay servers, or lay readers. At more solemn services among the Eastern Catholics it was not uncommon for a priest to vest as a deacon and serve as such. This was the common practice in the Latin West also, for there is an understanding in Western theology that the priest is still a deacon after ordination to the presbyterate. (This matter is still to be addressed fully in Catholic theology and liturgical practice. This is not only a sacramental matter but also one that goes to the heart of the apostolic ministerial practice, pneumatology and ecclesiology.)

Thus, we can see that a number of diverse factors and historical contingencies led to the reality of the diaconate as a permanent order in the Eastern Catholic Churches as well as some of the Orthodox Churches being little more than a vestige. What was established by the Apostles as part of the apostolic ministry had atrophied in most local Churches into little more than a transitional period for the purpose of fulfilling a canonical obligation.

The liturgical tradition as exemplified in the texts bore witness to an active diaconate but the reality was something quite different. This certainly raises serious questions about the self-consciousness of the Church. It seems that the bishops of Vatican II were acutely aware of the need to address this matter and as we will see their reasons were rooted in the patristic witness to the apostolic Church.